Reports, muckraking, photos and musings from the veteran gay and AIDS human rights advocate Michael Petrelis. Based in San Francisco since 1995. Contact: MPetrelis_at_AOL_dot_com

Monday, November 22, 2004

The 2003 HIV/AIDS epidemiology report from the San Francisco Department of Public Health was recently released, showing a dramatic leveling of new HIV infections, and once and for all proving a July 1, 2000, front-page story in the New York Times about HIV rates here was wrong.

The executive summary of the new report states the "HIV/AIDS epidemic has taken another turn in San Francisco. Previously, we reported that HIV transmission was resurgent among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the late 1990s. Our conclusion was based on rising trends in sexual risk behavior, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and, in several studies, HIV incidence itself. We now detect a more complex pattern in the HIV epidemic.

"New data suggest HIV incidence has leveled off in the past few years. Application of the Serological Testing Algorithm for Recent HIV Seroconversion (STARHS) to specimens collected at the anonymous and the STD clinic testing sites finds that recent infection peaked in 1999. From 1999 to 2003, HIV incidence has stabilized."

"A small but sharp rise in new infections with the virus that causes AIDS has been detected among gay men in San Francisco over the last three years, San Francisco health officials said yesterday . . . [and that the] rise is deeply troubling because it was seen in San Francisco, one of the principal centers of the AIDS epidemic that was first detected in 1981. Thus, the rise could signal a new wave of infections there and elsewhere, San Francisco health officials said."

To drive a scary point home, Altman noted that "Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, an AIDS expert at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said his agency had not reviewed the San Francisco findings. But, if confirmed, the findings 'are very serious and important,' Dr. Valdiserri said in an interview."

But, if the findings are not confirmed four years later, will the Times do the journalistically honorable thing and revisit and update the story, reflecting new data?

One of the reasons why HIV has stabilized among gay men in San Francisco, according to the new report, is because the "widespread use of [anti-AIDS drug cocktails] may also dampen HIV incidence as lower viral loads translate into lower risk of transmission."

So the drugs many of us AIDS patients are taking not only help keep us alive, prevent opportunistic infections, boost T-cell counts, reduce HIV viral loads, but they also appear to play a significant role in stopping new HIV transmissions. This is good news that simply has not been reported in the Times, other mainstream media and the gay and AIDS press.

This new HIV data comes at a time when the San Francisco health department has been waging social marketing campaigns about supposed increases in other STDs for gay men.

First, the 2003 report says the "data on male gonococcal proctitis suggest some of the increase in reported male rectal gonorrhea may be due to increased screening." In other words, more tests for STDs is probably a strong factor in why there are more cases being detected.

Second, even with a climb in the STD infection rates, it is not equaling an increase in HIV infections.

In my opinion, it says much about what is wrong with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, HIV prevention groups here, and the press.

When flimsy evidence was produced in 2000 to herald an alleged skyrocketing of HIV infections, those entities seized upon the questionable evidence for more government funding and bogus, alarming news accounts.

Now, new research is released documenting a stable HIV transmission rate, and public health officials along with their counterparts in the private sector, remain silent, while reporters ignore the latest findings.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Out of simple curiosity, and owning a single share of stock in the New York Times Company, I checked out the paper's Neediest Cases IRS 990 tax return. I want to know about every publicly available document related to the corporation that owns the nation's most influential publication.

One of the most laudable aspects of the Neediest Cases Fund is that all of the administrative costs are borne by the New York Times. None of the money donated to it goes to overhead, salaries, capacity building or other expenses. All contributions are passed along to other social welfare charities in the New York City area.

The FY 2003 IRS 990 return for the Neediest Cases Fund revealed startling information about the salaries of the top six executive officers of the company, who also comprise the board of directors of the fund. The return clearly explains the compensation listed is for service to the company, not the charity.

My hunch is that in the newspaper world, these pay levels are not out of line, but I will leave it to other media watchdogs to compare the New York Times' executives' compensation with other daily publications.

But I find it enormously ironic that I learned of the compensation by reading the tax return for the paper's Neediest Cases Fund (emphasis mine).

Here's the link to the most current IRS 990 for the fund, along with the salary information:

The oddest thing about the money trail I followed for President Bush's Attorney General nominee, Alberto R. Gonzales, was that he apparently made a donation to a Democrat, former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen. I couldn't find any record at tray.com showing a donation to Bentsen, but $25 was returned to Gonzeles from Bentsen's campaign.

No surprise Gonzales contributed to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-TX, back in 1993. His $500 donation to her is no reason for her to recuse herself from voting to confirm him to be the new Attorney General, according to Kenyon Brown of the Senate Ethics Committee who spoke with me on the phone about the donation yesterday.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Knut Royce, of Newsday's Washington bureau, wrote yesterday that heads are rolling at the Central Intelligence Agency for political reasons.

>"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."<

Checking the Federal Election Commission records available at www.tray.com, using the Central Intelligence Agency or CIA as the search terms, I discovered six CIA employees made contributions to Bush/Cheney or the RNC, and gave a total of $6,701.

On the other hand, only four CIA employees donated to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign. Their contributions came to $1,750.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Unlike other media outlets that are blatantly commercial and profit-driven, National Public Radio is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit. As such, NPR must annually file an IRS 990 report, which is available on the web at www.guidestar.com.

The latest IRS 990 for NPR for FY 2003 shows it had $120,017,283 in revenue, of which only $204,508 was in the form of government grants.

One of the most fascinating things about any nonprofit's IRS 990 return is the information provided for pay levels of the top employees and directors.

Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with these salary and benefit levels, but I do think NPR should inform its audience, especially on its web site, that it is a nonprofit and their IRS 990 return is posted at the GuideStar site.

In my opinion, NPR employees are citizens too and as such are able to
participate in the civic life. They may not use their positions at NPR to advocate
for candidates or for matters of public controversy. I see no problem with any
NPR employee exercising his or her rights as citizens. NPR management
may have another view on this.

Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
Ombudsman@npr.org
National Public Radio
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Dvorkin:

After reading your column today about the ethical quandaries facing a National Public Reporter, Michele Norris, whose husband was an advisor to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, I followed the link you provided to NPR's ethical guidelines.

The guidelines seem quite clear about barring political donations from NPR journalists:

http://www.npr.org/about/ethics/#politics

[snip]

IX. Politics, Community and Outside Activities

1. NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality in coverage.

[snip]

Despite this policy, several NPR journalists made donations in the most recent national elections, according to files at the PoliticalMoneyLines' web site, www.tray.com.

As you can see, all of the giving by NPR journalists went to Democratic candidates or the Democratic National Committee, which may give listeners the impression NPR and its political coverage was slanted in favor of Democrats.

While I believe it's laudable NPR has policies in place prohibiting such donations, the public record shows NPR journalists violated NPR ethical guidelines.

So what is NPR management doing about the donations? Is management aware of the donations? Will NPR ask that the contributions be returned? Should NPR post the donations on its web site or include the information in an on-air story? If it's determined the giving broke NPR policy, will the journalists be reprimanded?

Thursday, November 04, 2004

[From nievese@washpost.com]

Hello:

I appreciate your concern, but Ross and I live together. We have been partners for five years. I have not written about his campaign nor about the District 5 race. My bosses let me come to San Francisco Tuesday to be with him.Thanks.

Evelyn Nieves

-

Dear Ms. Nieves:

Thanks for replying so quickly. While I understand you're not writing about Mirkarimi or his campaign in the Haight Ashbury district, I do wonder if your $500 donation to his campaign violated any Wash Post ethical guidelines. I am under the impression that the paper prohibits reporters from political donations, even if the reporter is not writing about a given candidate. Has the post adapted its rules about this since Kurtz wrote about them back in January?

Best,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

-

Dear Mr. Petrelis:

The standard for reporters is not to donate to any campaign because it compromises objectivity.

In my case, I was already compromised because Ross Mirkarimi is my domestic partner and of course I was rooting for him. So donating to his campaign does not further compromise me.

The rule is; I stay out of writing about the particular race and/or any of the candidates in that race.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

If you read Howard Kurtz's Washington Post front-page January 17 article about reporters donating to politicians and the policies news media outlets maintain about such giving, you know that the paper prohibits its reporters from making donations.

Kurtz reported that "Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said he would discuss the matter with the reporters' editors. 'You can't make political contributions at all,' he said, citing the paper's policy." (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26386-2004Jan17?language=printer)

If that's the policy, then what the heck is Post reporter Evelyn Nieves doing giving $500 to Ross Mirkarimi, Green Party candidate for San Francisco's Board of Supervisors for District 8, the Haight Ashbury neighborhood?

According to public records at the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Nieves made her contribution back in June and listed her employer as the Post.